Who Lost Russia?

By 1988, Ronald Reagan, who had famously branded
the Soviet Union "an evil empire," was striding through Red Square arm-in-arm
with Mikhail Gorbachev. Russians were pounding both men on the back.

They had just signed the greatest arms-reduction agreement in history –
eliminating all Soviet SS-20s targeted on Europe, in return for removal of the
Pershing and cruise missiles Reagan had deployed in Europe.

"Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive, But to be young was very heaven!"
wrote Wordsworth about his first hearing the news of the fall of the Bastille.

Many of us felt that way then.

Within three years, the Berlin Wall had come down, the puppet regimes of
Eastern Europe had been swept away, Germany was reunited, the Red Army had gone
home, the Soviet Empire had vanished, and the Soviet Union had broken up into
15 nations. The Baltic republics were free. Ukraine was free.

Yet, on the eve of the G-8 summit, Vladimir Putin has announced that Russia
will retarget missiles on NATO. We must, he said, counter Bush's decision to
put anti-missile missiles in Poland and radars in the Czech Republic. Why are
we doing this?

The United States says the ABM system in Europe is to defend against an
Iranian attack. But Tehran has no atom bomb and no ICBM.

We appear to be headed for a second Cold War – and, if we are, responsibility
will not fully rest with the Kremlin. For among those who have mismanaged the
relationship are presidents Clinton and Bush II, the baby boomers who appear
to have kicked away the fruits of a Cold War victory won by their Greatest Generation
predecessors.

How did they do it?

When the Red Army went home from Eastern Europe, the United States, in violation
of an understanding with Moscow, began to move NATO east. We have since brought
into our military alliance six former members of the Warsaw Pact and three former
provinces of the Soviet Union: Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia.

Anti-Russia hawks are now pushing to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO.
If they succeed, we could be dragged into future confrontations with a nuclear-armed
Russia about who has sovereignty over the Crimea and whether South Ossetia should
be part of Georgia.

Are these vital U.S. interests worth risking a war? Why are we moving a U.S.-led
military alliance into the front yard and onto the side porch of a country with
thousands of nuclear weapons? Would we accept any commensurate Chinese or Russian
move in the Caribbean?

After Moscow gave us a green light to use the former Soviet republics of
Central Asia to base U.S. forces for the Afghan war, the United States has sought
permanent bases there. Russia and China have now united to throw us out of their
back yard.

America colluded with Azerbaijan and Georgia to build a Baku-Tiblisi-Ceyhan
pipeline to transmit Caspian Sea oil across the Caucasus to the Black Sea and
Turkey, cutting Russia out of the action.

In 1999, the United States bombed Serbia 78 days to punish her for fighting
to hold her cradle province of Kosovo, which Muslim Albanians were tearing away.
Orthodox Russia had long seen herself as protectress of the Balkan Slavs. That
Clinton ignored Russia in launching this unprovoked war on Serbia was seen in
Moscow as proof that Russian concerns had become irrelevant in Washington.

After helping dump over the government in Belgrade, our Neocomintern – the
National Endowment for Democracy, Freedom House, and other fronts – interfered
in Ukraine and Georgia, helping oust pro-Moscow regimes and install pro-American
ones. Since then, NED has been run out of Belarus and its subsidiaries are about
to get the boot from Moscow.

Can we blame the Russians for being angry? How would we react to left-wing NGOs
in Washington, flush with Moscow oil money, aiding elements hostile to the Bush
administration?

The United States has been constantly hectoring Russia on backsliding from
democracy. But compared to Beijing, Moscow is Montpelier, Vt. And why, if the
Cold War is over, are Russia's political arrangements any of our business?

If we don't like the way Putin treats Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Boris Berezovsky,
and the other "oligarchs" who robbed Russia blind in the 1990s, maybe Putin
doesn't like how we treated Martha Stewart.

Harry Truman is often blamed for having started the Cold War. He didn't. Stalin
did. But Clinton, George W., and the neocons have a strong claim to having started
the second. A first order of business of the next president should be to repair
the damage this crowd has done – and to get out of Russia's face.

Patrick J. Buchanan was twice a candidate for the Republican presidential
nomination and the Reform Partys candidate in 2000. He is also
a founder and editor of the new magazine, The
American Conservative. Now a commentator and columnist, he
served three presidents in the White House, was a founding panelist
of three national television shows, and is the author of seven books.

Reproduction of material from any original Antiwar.com pages
without written permission is strictly prohibited.
Copyright 2015 Antiwar.com